How badly does the rebound effect undercut energy efficiency?

I don't think it matters, really. All I hear is that energy efficiency produces boosts to the economy, both in retail and in industry. That extra 'feel-good' cash can be used to fund R&D that was previously underfunded or invest in new capital for the future. This will only fuel further advances in efficiency by more industry investment.

In June 2011, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), an independent science and research organization, released a report on technology innovation in electricity generation [...] in 2015, generating a megawatt-hour of electricity with natural gas will cost between $49 and $79, according to EPRI estimates. That same quantity of energy produced from onshore wind will cost between $75 and $138, while generating it with solar photovoltaic will cost at least $242 and as much as $455.

There's your 10 times more expensive politically-mandated power source right there, resulting in Joe Q Public (KidSizedCoffin's) complaint that their power bill keeps increasing non-stop.

Actually, your own numbers, assuming they are 100% accurate, says that the alternative sources of energy there considered would cost between 0.95 and 9.29 of what natural gas produced electricity costs. That is very different from 4-10....

[PV solar is not mandated by anybody, anywhere, because it is ridiculously expensive per watt in comparison to thermal solar.

We agree that PV solar is ridiculously expensive. One could argue that wind, solar, etc., are also ridiculously expensive, since these could easily double each U.S. person's monthly power bill. But then again, perhaps a doubling of power bills is not considered ridiculous in some quarters.

Do you have a source for PV solar not being mandated anywhere? Thanks in advance,

I understand the principle but the magnitude still seems high. Am I such an over-paid oddball, that I don't even think about the cost of gasoline when I drive or cost-per-load of my wash? Put it this way, improve my fuel cost by 30% and I don't think my driving would change even 1%.

I make a top quintile income, and I've still decided against taking unnecessary trips due to fuel costs. Not down the street to the store, mind you. And not necessarily cross-country vacations. But that one specialty store across town? Yeah, maybe I've got nothing better going on this Sunday afternoon, and maybe there's a thing I want there...but driving there will cost me like $8 in gas, and I can just order it online and get it Tuesday with free shipping...

I think I actually drive less since I traded in my GTI for a Sportwagen TDI. I'm right about 12,000/yr now, was about 15,000/yr previously. I don't take the Sportwagen out for joy rides, because, though it can get some torque off-the-line, it's just not a driving machine. It's ok to drive, it just doesn't excite me.

I went from about 17MPG in the VR6 to about 32MPG in the diesel. Most of my driving is surface, crawling through traffic in L.A. I can easily get 45MPG out of the Sportwagen on the highway.

So, I'd say the rebound effect on the car is bullshit.

Now, let's look at CRT usage vs. Flat Panel. I still think it's overall more efficient, but I now have 3 monitors on my desk instead of 2. More display space was enabled by the rebound effect of smaller volume of the newer displays, and the lower cost.

Early power plants in late 1800s were ridiculously expensive to operate and notoriously unreliable. But it was the only option for industrial power production so they went with it and refined the tech and today it's cheap and reliable.

We have them now. We have the coal fired and gas turbines. We can continue using them, right? Well no we can't. Hydro sure, because it's renewable. But we can't continue burning coal and we can't continue burning gas. I think you know the two reasons why, limited supply of fuel and environmental impact, and so knows everyone else reading this.

So we need to explore alternatives before the existing power sources run out. Decades before so the new tech has the time to mature and become cheaper and more reliable. Not 6 months before.

Six months before is exactly what would happen if this were left up to the power conglomerates. The companies, the brand names, the entities that spend billions marketing their brands to make themselves appear as cohesive monolithic entities? They are run by individuals, by people. The decision makers are overpaid execs whose self interest is next quarterly results and their bonus sizes. They absolutely do not care if the company's "core product", be it oil or gas or coal, or power produced from oil or gas or coal, if it will run out in 20 years. Why would they care? They have no reason to care.

So then we make them care. We compel them to pursue alternatives through tax credits or mandates that x percentage of their power must be from alternative sources. The power companies have no choice but to do it, today, reluctantly. That in turn gets the alternatives coming along until they are reliable and viable. Someday the traditional energy sources will get scarce and become expensive, at which point the alternatives are not only present and working, not only reliable, but also economically viable. That can be so only if the alternative technologies had already been in development for decades, which never would have happened if power companies were left to their own devices. They'd quite happily keep pumping the oil and digging up the coal until it got so scarce or difficult to get to, and thus expensive, and then they'd look for alternatives. Ooops too late.

Also is this "rebound" effect does it manifest differently for say a business? e.g. UPS, steel mill.

See Jevon's paradox.

Also, see the Kardashev scale.

It all boils down to the fact that the richer your life, the more energy you are going to consume. In the end, if you live in the developed world, you will use UPS more and will use more steel than aborigines in Papua New Guinea.

And if the prices of UPS and steel drop sufficiently in relation to the income of those aborigines, then you will see them using more UPS and more steel.

So, draw your own conclusions with regard to what is the long-term trend for UPS and for steel mills.

Typically, a watt generated with these politically mandated sources costs between 4 and 10 times more.

Source please. 2-3 I could see, 4-10 sounds like an absurd exaggeration.

In June 2011, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), an independent science and research organization, released a report on technology innovation in electricity generation [...] in 2015, generating a megawatt-hour of electricity with natural gas will cost between $49 and $79, according to EPRI estimates. That same quantity of energy produced from onshore wind will cost between $75 and $138, while generating it with solar photovoltaic will cost at least $242 and as much as $455.

There's your 10 times more expensive politically-mandated power source right there, resulting in Joe Q Public (KidSizedCoffin's) complaint that their power bill keeps increasing non-stop.

Every quarter the solar industry takes another step toward grid parity in locations around the world, even passing it in some locations.•According to GTM Research, the cost to install a utility scale solar system has fallen 45.8% since the beginning of 2010 to $2.60 per watt.•Over the same time frame, residential solar installations have dropped 21.8% to $5.46 per watt.

If solar is so expensive, why is Corporate America embracing this money-sucking technology:

Quote:

Corporate America has taken a surprisingly quick liking to solar power in recent years -- the companies installing solar might surprise you. The Solar Energy Industries Association, or SEIA, just released the top 20 corporate users and here are the top five:1.Walmart comes in first with 65 MW installed.2.Costco has installed 38.9 MW.3.Kohl's has 36.5 MW of capacity.4.IKEA has installed solar on 79% of its stores for a total of 21.5 MW of solar.5.Macy's rounds out the top five with 16.2 MW of installed solar.

In June 2011, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), an independent science and research organization, released a report on technology innovation in electricity generation [...] in 2015, generating a megawatt-hour of electricity with natural gas will cost between $49 and $79, according to EPRI estimates. That same quantity of energy produced from onshore wind will cost between $75 and $138, while generating it with solar photovoltaic will cost at least $242 and as much as $455.

There's your 10 times more expensive politically-mandated power source right there, resulting in Joe Q Public (KidSizedCoffin's) complaint that their power bill keeps increasing non-stop.

Actually, your own numbers, assuming they are 100% accurate, says that the alternative sources of energy there considered would cost between 0.95 and 9.29 of what natural gas produced electricity costs. That is very different from 4-10....

As fuel efficiency goes up, apparently gas tax revenues are going down. At least according to an article today in the Merc news. So eventually gas taxes will go up till the State gets the revenue it expects. How much will this be? Who knows, but I suggest that it's rather open-ended.

So WRT to the State, we seem to have the inverse rebound effect. And probably the federal gas tax as well.

"Most consumers have not benefited from the enormous drop-off in power plant fuel costs because the same politicians have foisted wind and solar project mandates onto utilities.

EDIT TO ADD: and wind is somehow "unsustainable"?

Oversight. OK. So are you going to argue that photov is not solar? I wanna see that in your retraction.

Wind at current prices is economically unsustainable. I'm surprised you don't know this. First, it requires buy-in mandates foisted on the utilities. Second, it requires federal tax credits. Third, it usually requires state tax credits! But the real problem for wind is labor. Yep, the labor to keep maintaining the transmissions and gears up there in the nacelles, which fail constantly.

Corporate America has taken a surprisingly quick liking to solar power in recent years -- the companies installing solar might surprise you. The Solar Energy Industries Association, or SEIA, just released the top 20 corporate users and here are the top five:1.Walmart comes in first with 65 MW installed.2.Costco has installed 38.9 MW.3.Kohl's has 36.5 MW of capacity.4.IKEA has installed solar on 79% of its stores for a total of 21.5 MW of solar.5.Macy's rounds out the top five with 16.2 MW of installed solar.

There is a major difference between the voluntary greenwashing/PR efforts of major corporations and the fact consumers are now seeing increased utility bills over whose rates they have little control.

Regarding Walmart's greenwashing, some choice quotes from Nov 2011:

* the company currently derives less than 2 percent of its electricity from its solar projects and wind-power purchases

* While the company has been talking big about renewable energy, its greenhouse gas emissions have been rising steadily. Between 2005 and 2009, Walmart’s reported emissions in the U.S. grew by roughly 7 percent. In Asia, they doubled. The company says its operations produced 21 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2009, and it expects 30 million metric tons of cumulative growth in emissions by 2015.

* In the U.S., Walmart’s energy-efficiency steps have reduced energy use in stores built before 2006 by 10 percent, on average, saving about 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 annually. But new stores built in the U.S. since 2006 have added at least 3.5 million metric tons to Walmart’s yearly CO2 output.

As fuel efficiency goes up, apparently gas tax revenues are going down. At least according to an article today in the Merc news. So eventually gas taxes will go up till the State gets the revenue it expects. How much will this be? Who knows, but I suggest that it's rather open-ended.

So WRT to the State, we seem to have the inverse rebound effect. And probably the federal gas tax as well.

One thing to always bear in mind is that 37% of federal gasoline taxes are currently "flexed" to items unrelated to roads. Therefore, if any chicken littles complain that "OMG! we will have no money to fix potholes", all you have to do is remind them that if politicians stop helping themselves to our road taxes, there is currently just about 50% more money in the current pot that could be spent on roads and bridges.

In reality, all the noise about gasoline taxes "going down" is just a pretext for a cash grab.

Even if the rebound effect consumed all of the energy savings, we'd still benefit from all of the increased travelling we can do before we run out of cheap fuel. Efficiency is simply a good thing to have (unless you're in the business of selling fuel).

Or unless the cost of the efficiency improvements is greater than the savings.

This is very true. Take hybrid vehicles for instance. I have an 8 mile commute to work and drive between 8-10k miles a year. The cost difference of a hybrid versus a non hybrid vehicle will never offset the savings in fuel costs over the life of the vehicle unless fuel costs go up considerably. I simply don't drive enough to make up the difference, and I don't have enough disposable income to just do it anyway. So I'll instead reduce use via efficient lighting, water heating, heating and air etc, as these are things I use enough for it to both save money and save energy.

Now at work, where we have reporters driving all over town everyday, those vehicles we buy are all hybrids, as they are driven enough to see significant savings over the life of a vehicle, typically about 200k miles. A hybrid Escape replacing a 10-12 year old Explorer sport has significant return on investment. A Prius, even more so. The upside is, the drive to reduce energy use trickles down to the other devices, and everything increases in efficiency over time.

Corporate America has taken a surprisingly quick liking to solar power in recent years -- the companies installing solar might surprise you. The Solar Energy Industries Association, or SEIA, just released the top 20 corporate users and here are the top five:1.Walmart comes in first with 65 MW installed.2.Costco has installed 38.9 MW.3.Kohl's has 36.5 MW of capacity.4.IKEA has installed solar on 79% of its stores for a total of 21.5 MW of solar.5.Macy's rounds out the top five with 16.2 MW of installed solar.

There is a major difference between the voluntary greenwashing/PR efforts of major corporations and the fact consumers are now seeing increased utility bills over whose rates they have little control.

What are you even talking about? Are we to pretend that energy costs never went up before solar power came onto the scene? Becase that's utterly ridiculous.

Quote:

Regarding Walmart's greenwashing, some choice quotes from Nov 2011:

* the company currently derives less than 2 percent of its electricity from its solar projects and wind-power purchases

And? IKEA is at 79%. Whoopdedo. Way to ignore the rest of my post.

Quote:

* While the company has been talking big about renewable energy, its greenhouse gas emissions have been rising steadily. Between 2005 and 2009, Walmart’s reported emissions in the U.S. grew by roughly 7 percent. In Asia, they doubled. The company says its operations produced 21 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2009, and it expects 30 million metric tons of cumulative growth in emissions by 2015.

And? Way to ignore the rest of my post.

Quote:

* In the U.S., Walmart’s energy-efficiency steps have reduced energy use in stores built before 2006 by 10 percent, on average, saving about 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 annually. But new stores built in the U.S. since 2006 have added at least 3.5 million metric tons to Walmart’s yearly CO2 output.

And? Wait.. did you think that I was trying to give Walmart a cookie? Is that what this is all about?

So what you're saying is, because one company is using solar as a longterm publicity stunt, that somehow makes $242-$455 ten times more costly than $49, that this means that the cost per watt for solar is not dropping like a rock. Am I getting this right?

My driving patterns haven't changed much since I got my PHEV, and my fuel economy improved from 23MPG to 400. I still drive about 12,000 miles per year. The only reason it might change is if my employer changes offices here sometime this year, but that's out of my control.

Yeah, I can't imagine people would drastically change their driving if fuel suddenly got a lot cheaper. Those who have to drive a lot, will drive a lot no matter what. And those who already drive less won't really have reasons to suddenly start driving a lot more.

Are we to pretend that energy costs never went up before solar power came onto the scene?

Nope.

But you should know that U.S. electric generation is still more from coal than anything else (42% or thereabouts), and you should know that thermal coal costs about a 1/3rd today of what it cost in 2008.

You should also know that over 25% of U.S. electric generation comes from natural gas, and that the cost of this raw material is now about 1/5th of what it cost in 2008.

Therefore, you should be seeing savings in your home power bill (depending on where you live, of course). But most U.S. households are not.

The actual numbers low to low and high to high of the low price vs high price fuels is closer to 5 to 1.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."--Mark Twain

Fritz, I am pretty sure the average homeowner is not going to much care about the difference between a 5 to 1 or a 10 to 1 multiple increase to her utility bill.

The point is that politically-correct energy sources are not 5% or 10% more expensive than domestically self-sufficient natural gas power generation.

These sources are multiple times more costly, and a real tax for working-class people.

I agree that the rising electric rates are a burden on many. I am no fan of my utility bill either. But you seem to try to be making the point that this is due primarily to the cost of renewable resources. While expensive to build and operate, these are not the only causes for increase. Many power plants are being retrofitted with pollution controls that are way more expensive than wind farms. So while the cost of gas or coal may go down, the increase in the cost to install and operate the pollution controls offsets those savings. There are very stringent upcoming standards that will force utilities to spend even more money on pollution controls on existing power plants that will continue to drive those utility rates up. The argument can be made that the more stringent air quality rules are because of the advances in renewable energy. This doesn't mean that this course is wrong. It just sucks to have to pay those bills.

In June 2011, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), an independent science and research organization, released a report on technology innovation in electricity generation [...] in 2015, generating a megawatt-hour of electricity with natural gas will cost between $49 and $79, according to EPRI estimates. That same quantity of energy produced from onshore wind will cost between $75 and $138, while generating it with solar photovoltaic will cost at least $242 and as much as $455.

There's your 10 times more expensive politically-mandated power source right there, resulting in Joe Q Public (KidSizedCoffin's) complaint that their power bill keeps increasing non-stop.

Actually, your own numbers, assuming they are 100% accurate, says that the alternative sources of energy there considered would cost between 0.95 and 9.29 of what natural gas produced electricity costs. That is very different from 4-10....

The argument can be made that the more stringent air quality rules are because of the advances in renewable energy. This doesn't mean that this course is wrong. It just sucks to have to pay those bills.

I think there is some room for disagreement w/r/t the more stringent air quality rules. Some argue that the costs currently being imposed on consumers via the currently ongoing forced scrapping of power plants that had decades of life left far outweigh the potential benefits.

The truth of the matter is that air in these United States is pretty good right now. Some basins, such as Los Angeles, have dirty air, but do believe me, that air does not come from power plants. In fact, some argue that the air in the LA basin was just as bad when the Spaniards first took control of the region.

Is therefore logical to ram these costly mandates on working class consumers? It is quite a regressive tax, you know, hitting the poor the hardest.

My driving patterns haven't changed much since I got my PHEV, and my fuel economy improved from 23MPG to 400. I still drive about 12,000 miles per year. The only reason it might change is if my employer changes offices here sometime this year, but that's out of my control.

I think there is some room for disagreement w/r/t the more stringent air quality rules. Some argue that the costs currently being imposed on consumers via the currently ongoing forced scrapping of power plants that had decades of life left far outweigh the potential benefits.

The truth of the matter is that air in these United States is pretty good right now. Some basins, such as Los Angeles, have dirty air, but do believe me, that air does not come from power plants. In fact, some argue that the air in the LA basin was just as bad when the Spaniards first took control of the region.

Is therefore logical to ram these costly mandates on working class consumers? It is quite a regressive tax, you know, hitting the poor the hardest.

I agree with almost everything you said. Those power plants that are being retired could often go years longer, and could be retrofitted with effective pollution controls. If that was the primary focus for utilities, the cost of adding or upgrading those air quality control systems would not have as much of an impact on the rates as we have seen. But because they are forced to do both reduce air pollution and increase renewable energy resources, the burden of those costs need to be recouped. Thus rates increase.

You are also right in stating that the powerplants are not the main polluter. Effective public transportation would do more to reduce pollution, and coincidentally drive gas prices down, than anything else we have talked about.

My driving patterns haven't changed much since I got my PHEV, and my fuel economy improved from 23MPG to 400. I still drive about 12,000 miles per year. The only reason it might change is if my employer changes offices here sometime this year, but that's out of my control.

Where I live we are 80% hydro and 20% nuclear. We have one coal fired plant and it's scheduled to shut down permanently soon. That makes an EV far cleaner than a gasoline car. (We need to build centralized nuclear waste sites FFS! Yucca was promising, alas political pressure shut it down.) We have EV charging stations everywhere. Walgreens parking lot? Yep. My local lap pool? Yep. City park? Yep. Everywhere.

Moreover, now that heavy vehicles such as the VW Touareg can do 24MPG, it is very easy for any rational person looking for a tall, safe vehicle to just go ahead and buy the heavy behemoth instead of a light VW Jetta that used to do the same 24MPG just a few years ago.

Rebound effect can literally zero out any mandates in many cases.

1. A Touareg costs a lot more money than a Jetta, or a Golf, or any other car that is far more efficient. Gas is not the only cost.

2. You are aassuming that people want to spend the same on gas when they could still be spending less. This is especially short sighted in the light that the cost of gas has risen dramatically in the last decade and is likely to continue to do so.

Typically, a watt generated with these politically mandated sources costs between 4 and 10 times more.

Source please. 2-3 I could see, 4-10 sounds like an absurd exaggeration.

In June 2011, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), an independent science and research organization, released a report on technology innovation in electricity generation [...] in 2015, generating a megawatt-hour of electricity with natural gas will cost between $49 and $79, according to EPRI estimates. That same quantity of energy produced from onshore wind will cost between $75 and $138, while generating it with solar photovoltaic will cost at least $242 and as much as $455.

There's your 10 times more expensive politically-mandated power source right there, resulting in Joe Q Public (KidSizedCoffin's) complaint that their power bill keeps increasing non-stop.

I would argue that certain things will tend to have less of a rebound than others. For example, getting a more efficient dish washer or a washer/dryer wouldn't change the average persons habits one whit. Clothes and dishes still need to be cleaned as they are used, and most people aren't going to go washing one piece of clothing at a time because they have an ultra efficient washer. Or clean a single place setting per load.

So - those types of efficiency improvements would tend to contribute far more to overall national energy savings than (as mentioned) more efficient vehicles. You would be more likely to take a more efficient vehicle on a longer trip - thus using the same (or more) gasoline - instead of staying closer to home. Thus the efficiency is negated - but that's because you're not really comparing equal events.

I'll probably get downvoted like crazy myself for this, but for as much as everyone disagrees with XavierItzmann, he does have a good number of valid points and has stuck with them throughout all the downvoting and attacks against him.

Renewable costs more money right now in a lot situations. Sometimes a lot more. That cost is passed on to consumers. Perhaps that cost is justified right now, we won't really know until we have hindsight to back it up. People pick on him for the 10x number, but I think everyone can see that most of those renewable choices cost a not insignificant amount more than natural gas.

Greenwashing is a great term that I hadn't heard before. I'm always rolling my eyes at every company ad that plays up how 'green' they are. "Stop getting mailed statements. We love the environment! (read - We don't want to pay for stamps and a mail room, we could give a shit about the environment!)"

Everyone's now fighting over split hairs. You said PV! No I didn't! Did too! I think keeping the big picture in mind - is it worth the added public cost to invest in renewables at this time? If we waited, perhaps private industry would pick up the slack. If we did not wait, perhaps we would find ourselves up the creek without a paddle. How much money is worth the risk?

You are aassuming that people want to spend the same on gas when they could still be spending less. This is especially short sighted in the light that the cost of gas has risen dramatically in the last decade and is likely to continue to do so.

Sorry to disappoint ya, here are some stats:

US Truck Sales as % of Truck and Automobile Sales

1979 - 25%1984 - 29%1989 - 34%1994 - 42%1999 - 50%2004 - 57%

2008 - 50%2009 - 49%2010 - 52%2011 - 53%2012 - 51%

Looks to me like people like'm trucks. Expensive 2012 gas? Who cares! Twice as many trucks now than in 1979.

Looks like people vote with their money, no matter if the Fed sourpusses in DOT would like us all to drive Toyota Yarises.

Even if the rebound effect consumed all of the energy savings, we'd still benefit from all of the increased travelling we can do before we run out of cheap fuel. Efficiency is simply a good thing to have (unless you're in the business of selling fuel).

Or unless the cost of the efficiency improvements is greater than the savings.

How big are long term costs of PV? Once the equipment is paid for there is very little needed to maintain it for the next 25 years aside from keeping the panels washed and trim the weeds back. No cost of fuel at all which is an ongoing concern of burning things or nukes - and nukes have waste that costs how much to protect for the next how many centuries?

I am not saying that PV is the end all be all silver bullet solution but the way the pro-NG and pro-coal guys talk, you'd think wind and PV require Star Trek technologies to make it work. I think the only reason those guys don't go after hydro is that it obviously works and everyone knows it. The average know-nothing consumer who spends more time watching brainless TV than thinking still doubts green tech and they will as long as the propaganda continues to work on them. Just follow the money. Got to protect the cash cow fossil fuels as long as possible...